Atheists: Is stealing wrong? If so, explain why.
Just my $.02
Not if you're really a Christian.
Luke 6:27-30:
Luke 6:35:
Matthew 5:39-42:
If you protect yourself or your property, or seek justice for yourself, then you are no longer a Christian.
A-men!
_________________
not a bug - a feature.
I think we run into problems when we try to generalise moral rules for all parts of society. This was much simpler when religious texts were being written because
1. Societies were simpler then, and (possibly) easier to understand
2. Self enforcement of rules was easier when people believed in Gods.
Now we live in highly complex societies and we have a highly complex division of personality types. Mothers, Soldiers, Farmers and film stars all play roles that society has deemed necessary.
If all mothers became farmers, we might solve world hunger, but only at the risk of a drastic reduction in the world’s population.
If all soldiers became engineers, we would lose our appetite for war and have our asses handed to us when the aliens or the Chinese invade. And with so many engineers on the job market, rewards would decrease and the impetus to become an engineer would be smaller, prompting a migration of brain power from the engineering field, after which our technology would reduce in quality.
We can generalise this to a lot of occupations and behaviours. When one part of the societal equation is changed, there are reactions big and small, now and later that we can’t predict.
The same is true of theft. If everyone stole, society would collapse. Congratulations Einsteins But likewise, if everyone was a farmer, society would collapse, and yet growing food is a good thing, no?
A complete end to theft would require big changes to society - rigid control and harsh punishments. This would have its own impact and change the character of our societies, perhaps to something more like Saudi Arabia.
So if theft is a systemic part of our societies, how can we judge it with such a simple category as wrong? What are the wider societal benefits of theft?
_________________
Ara, what do I care for me goose feathered bed?
What do I care for blankets?
Tonight I lie in a wide open field,
in the arms of me raggle taggle gypsy-o
well i am sorry i am not very emotionally smart. i can not see how people think much.
your story is no doubt valid, but it is lost on me because i am silly.
yes there must be a solid notion of deservedness, and to steal from that is parasitic.
ok i am sorry i commented because i had an autistic view i guess.
i am trying to upload a big file to youtube, and i am distracted.
ana-banana could also mean "ana"-"ban"-"anna"
if your name is "anna" then it is possible to ban "anna" from your vision.
but i am thinking in a very concrete way and it is better suited to things other than communication.
nighty night.
ok i am sorry i commented because i had an autistic view i guess.
i am trying to upload a big file to youtube, and i am distracted.
ana-banana could also mean "ana"-"ban"-"anna"
if your name is "anna" then it is possible to ban "anna" from your vision.
but i am thinking in a very concrete way and it is better suited to things other than communication.
nighty night.
lol I never noticed that before. maybe that's some subconscious self-hatred or something, I would have asked Freud but he's dead now and only he knew what people really think
no worries about the confusion, glad to explain (I sometimes have a hard time cracking your metaphors too b9 )
_________________
not a bug - a feature.
I really don't think so.
It is an extremely efficient means of transfering wealth or goods from one party to another.
What's bugging me here is that there is an assumption there is such a thing as an 'atheistic/evolutionary standpoint' which people use to derive morality.
Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods, or the active disbelief in Gods. The theory of evolution is our best explanation of the development of life. They are 2 different things that cannot be said to coalesce to form a moral standpoint.
The acceptance of the theory of evolution has no implications for the development of a moral code. The acceptance of Atheism merely makes more obvious what should be obvious to everyone anyway: that morality is not prescribed by a book or an institution claiming divine authority, it is something we arrive at by using our powers of reason to discover what course of action leads to an increase in human well-being & a reduction of human-suffering.
There is one side of this that has not yet been covered. When someone uses a pirated piece of software that he would not have purchased because he had not the finances, is he stealing? He is not taking any income from the originator of the software since he would not have been able to legally purchase it anyway. Is this stealing?
Yes, but the difference is that atheists can't logically support morals, beyond morality being merely a personal preference,
and thus something a thief can vaildly reject for himself, because when he says that stealing isn't "wrong for him",
any atheist's argument against that sentiment is not based on anything that is even logically compatible with atheism.
With atheism, you are left with believing in evolution, which teaches survival of the fittest as the one and only way that progress (evolution) occurs, whether we like it or not.
I.e., when you and your friend are starving in the desert, it's best to kill him and take his food and water. An atheist cannot call that even slightly wrong, and back up his statement with reason. After all, you're doing this to survive, so it's fully defensible to those who put a premium on survival, and to anyone who accepts survival of the fittest as the reigning concept of life. In fact, attacking your potential competition ruthlessly is what you should do based on the evolutionary theory of how progress is made: you're simply advancing the species by taking every cruel advantage you can of other people, by the evolutionary model. Who can sat you are in the wrong except a religious person? No one. The quote, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is what we're left with: pure moral relativism, when stealing isn't wrong, but is rather just someone else's version of what is right.
Stealing is survival of the fittest:
It's the smarter and/or more powerful annexing the property of the less intelligent and/or weaker for one's own furtherance.
That's simply the way life works, under the evolutionary model: Attack them before they attack you.
There is no rational defense of morality within an atheistic framework. Anything deemed "morality" must come from outside atheism, and indeed from outside the physical world itself. For physical survival (which is the only kind atheists believe in), simple expediency is best: morality when it benefits you materially, and immorality when it benefits you materially.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
Last edited by Ragtime on 26 Dec 2008, 10:54 am, edited 18 times in total.
Just my $.02
But this is not a religious issue
You're right. It's a morality issue.
You're right. Religion has nothing to do with morality.
_________________
Yes, but the difference is that atheists can't logically support morals beyond morality being merely a personal preference,
and thus something a thief can vaildly reject, because stealing isn't "wrong, for him".
No. Morality is a social obligation which may be incorporated into religion which incorporates all sorts of behavior, sex, diet, speech, dress etc. But the function of morality is social not religious.
Averick
Veteran
Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!
Raggy, why do the religious steal?
And when that occurs, why is it different?
Last edited by Averick on 26 Dec 2008, 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm sure Ragtime has some Bible quote about Internet piracy
_________________
not a bug - a feature.
Yes, but the difference is that atheists can't logically support morals, beyond morality being merely a personal preference,
and thus something a thief can vaildly reject for himself, because when he says that stealing isn't "wrong for him",
any atheist's argument against that sentiment is not based on anything that is even logically compatible with atheism.
With atheism, you are left with believing in evolution, which teaches survival of the fittest as the only means of ultimate survival. I.e., when you and your friend are starving in the desert, it's best to kill him and take his food and water. An atheist cannot call that wrong, and back that up with reason. Stealing is survival of the fittest:
It's the smarter and/or more powerful annexing the property of the less intelligent and/or weaker.
There is no rational defense of morality within an atheistic framework. Anything deemed "morality" must come from outside atheism, and indeed from outside the physical world itself. For physical survival (which is the only kind atheists believe in), simple expediency is best: morality when it benefits you materially, and immorality when it benefits you materially.
have you not been reading the replies so far...?
_________________
not a bug - a feature.
When done in the name of God, even the most heinous and brutal crimes may be justified.
_________________
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Something Wrong With my Cat |
04 Feb 2024, 9:32 pm |
Would I be wrong to do this? |
21 Feb 2024, 5:40 am |
something wrong |
17 Mar 2024, 8:04 pm |
What's wrong with doing things later ? |
13 Mar 2024, 7:12 am |